The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

RickB · December 10, 2004, 07:06 PM

I think you'll find proponents of each sport trying to convince you that theirs is "better" than the other. I shoot both, and for the life of me, can't figure out how someone could be a big advocate of one over the other. They are both quality trigger time, and the differences are not as great as some make it out.
In a nutshell, IDPA considers targets "threats", and the rules are geared toward getting you to act as if they are shooting back; don't hang out too far from cover, don't run your gun dry in the open, don't expose yourself to more than one "threat" at a time, etc. The shooting scenarios are supposed to be based on realistic shooting problems that might actually have been encountered "on the street", and that's why the number of targets and number of rounds are limited; you're not likely to be carjacked by fifteen armed assailants. A typical course of fire, of which there might be six in a match, might require 6-12 rounds to complete.
IPSC treats the targets as bullet fodder, to be hunted down and ventilated, as quickly as possible. The only tactics are those that contribute to achieving that goal. Target numbers and arrays are often fanciful, but the shooting tests can be very difficult, precisely because there is no logical rationale driving the course designs; they are often like live-action video games, with lots of movement and lots of shooting. A course of fire could require over 30 rounds, but typically are 15-25.
IDPA scoring values accuracy over speed to a greater extent than IPSC, and there are more restrictions on gear in IDPA; a good IDPA rig will suffice for IPSC, but not necessarily the other way around. The pace of IDPA is slower than IPSC, and I think it is a better introduction to practical pistol shooting, for that reason.

December 10, 2004, 07:06 PM	#2
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	I think you'll find proponents of each sport trying to convince you that theirs is "better" than the other. I shoot both, and for the life of me, can't figure out how someone could be a big advocate of one over the other. They are both quality trigger time, and the differences are not as great as some make it out. In a nutshell, IDPA considers targets "threats", and the rules are geared toward getting you to act as if they are shooting back; don't hang out too far from cover, don't run your gun dry in the open, don't expose yourself to more than one "threat" at a time, etc. The shooting scenarios are supposed to be based on realistic shooting problems that might actually have been encountered "on the street", and that's why the number of targets and number of rounds are limited; you're not likely to be carjacked by fifteen armed assailants. A typical course of fire, of which there might be six in a match, might require 6-12 rounds to complete. IPSC treats the targets as bullet fodder, to be hunted down and ventilated, as quickly as possible. The only tactics are those that contribute to achieving that goal. Target numbers and arrays are often fanciful, but the shooting tests can be very difficult, precisely because there is no logical rationale driving the course designs; they are often like live-action video games, with lots of movement and lots of shooting. A course of fire could require over 30 rounds, but typically are 15-25. IDPA scoring values accuracy over speed to a greater extent than IPSC, and there are more restrictions on gear in IDPA; a good IDPA rig will suffice for IPSC, but not necessarily the other way around. The pace of IDPA is slower than IPSC, and I think it is a better introduction to practical pistol shooting, for that reason.